By Nicole Garneau, PhD

I've had a collision of thoughts (mine and others) over
the weekend and into this Monday morning, all dealing with
scientists and communication. I love when that happens; all fronts
meet in the middle and you realize that crazy idea percolating in
your head is at the edge of others minds as well. My dad calls this
occurrence "antennae", as in when multiple minds seem to engage
it's like having your "antennae up."

Today, my antennae are up and tuned into making scientists
better communicators. I was answering some interview questions from
a writer named Thorin Klosowski at the Westword this weekend in
preparation for the Sci-Fi Film series I'm a part of this
Wednesday. He asked, and poignantly so, "Do you think ethical
concerns would outweigh the benefits if Gattaca was ever a
reality?"

My answer:

There are huge benefits to understanding our own
genetics, including understanding the genes and mutations involved
in disease, customized and personal medicine based on genetics
(pharmacogenetics) and genealogical research. But it's not just
genetics; it's really what our bodies do with the recipes that make
this information so important. We haven't really reached a point
yet where that type of analysis is done in a way that is efficient
and cost effective.

I think in order to answer this question as a
society it's important that there is always an open discourse
between those to the right and left of the issue, so that neither
extreme mandates what we do with technology. What is most dangerous
is not having honest dialogue, because that's when genuine concerns
are not considered or equally worrisome, necessary scientific
developments are halted by those that don't fully understand the
technology There was a quote from Dr. Chad Nusbaum of the Broad
Institute in 2007 that I think hits the question on the
mark."Science is moving way ahead of the ethics. We can't stop the
technological advancements but the gap keeps widening. It is our
responsibility to understand the implications of our work and
educate the public and elected officials so that a proper dialog
can take place." (Reference
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/1-000-genome-remains-the-holiest/2000/)

What I realized, is that it's all fine and well for
scientists to get out there and communicate, but in actuality,
scientists have little to no formal training for communication with
a general audience. We kind of stay in our labs/holes etc. and
crank out the data, present at conferences to peers, hopefully
publish a paper, then lather rinse and repeat. It's not very often
that a scientist gets the chance to really share and collaborate
with their community outside the walls of their niche
discipline.

Here's why I'm stoked, this is something that the Museum is
concerned about. Our chief curator, Kirk Johnson, PhD, has been
keeping this at the forefront of our minds and our job
descriptions. Sometimes it feels like a losing battle, how do we
compete in a cut throat world of publish or perish if we spend 1/3
of our time communicating our research and not actually doing
research? He sent us this link (
http://www.good.is/post/poptech-2011-science-and-public-leadership-fellows-announced/
) this morning, about a new wave of support for scientists who can
talk in plain and understandable language and who ultimately can
make their science relevant. My antennae are up and I'll be right
there in line supporting this effort to get our neighbors, friends,
and communities engaged in a two-way dialogue with the scientific
research in their backyards.